On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:15:41PM +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > I'm thinking below style as new audio-graph-card2. > It is not tricky, thus connection judgement for normal vs DSP is easy. > Then, code can be more readable (= no guaranty :P) ? Having an audio-graph-card2 isn't ideal but may be required at least during development :/ Ideally we'd be able to have the new driver parse both binding formats (or rather, have the new binding format be new use cases for the same binding format) and only use -card2 while it's in development. > | Front End PCMs | SoC DSP | Back End DAIs | Audio devices | > > ************* > PCM0 <------------> * * <----DAI0-----> Codec Headset > * * > PCM1 <------------> * * <----DAI1-----> Codec Speakers > * DSP * > PCM2 <------------> * * <----DAI2-----> MODEM > * * > PCM3 <------------> * * <----DAI3-----> BT > * * > * * <----DAI4-----> DMIC > * * > * * <----DAI5-----> FM > ************* I think your plan with this explicit representation of the DSP is where we want to get to, the issue is mapping this onto DPCM as it currently stands. The binding you proposed underneath looked sensible on first readthrough.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
